Chandrashekhar Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Heard the parties.

This is an application being filed for quashing of the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Supaul in Session Trial No. 239 of 2018 arising out of Supaul P.S. Case No. 372 of 2018 under Section 366A of the IPC by which the learned Court below has rejected the discharge petition of the petitioner.

O.P. No.2 has filed his typed written report to the S.H.O. Supaul, and it is alleged therein that on 14.05.2018 at 05:00 A.M., his daughter namely, Damyanti Devi aged about 16 years has been abducted by the petitioner and other co-accused with white colour vehicle. He further alleged that the petitioner taught tuition to his daughter. He further stated that on 30.05.2018, he filed a Sanaha bearing Sanaha No. 593.

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that after investigation, police submitted final form/closure report against the petitioner before the learned jurisdictional magistrate, but taking a different view without assigning any reason, the learned jurisdictional magistrate took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 336A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the victim while recording her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. mentioned her age as 18 years, who said to be in love affairs with the petitioner. It is further submitted that the age of victim was also assessed by the Medical Board between 18-19 years. It is further submitted that if it is so, then certainly the victim while taking a marginal error of + 2 years, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court through Rajak Mohammad versus State of Himachal Pradesh [(2018) 9 SCC 248] can be said major on the date of occurrence.

Arguing further, it is submitted that in such view of matter, the victim was major at the date of occurrence, and therefore, the discharge petition, which was passed considering the age of victim only is completely contrary to law.

Learned APP on the other hand submitted that as per settled principles, merely on the basis of grave suspicion, the charge can be framed, and therefore, there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order.

In support of his submission, learned APP relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Sajjan Kumar versus CBI [(2010) 9 SCC 368], and in State of Tamil Nadu versus R. Soundirarasu & Ors. [(2023) 6 SCC 768] also.

It is further submitted by learned APP that no any documents which can be said unimpeachable in nature, like the certificate issued by Board conducting matriculation examination of victim was collected during the investigation, neither it was produced by the petitioner at the time of deciding the petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court, and therefore, the age as of the victim, who was in love with this petitioner, or whether it is a case to consider marginal error of + 2 years, in view of Rajak Mohammad Case (supra), all is factual aspects, the veracity of which can be ascertained during the trial only.

Considering the aforesaid, this Court is convinced enough that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is disputing the factual aspects qua age of the victim, particularly as per FIR when she was 16 years old at the time of occurrence, as discussed aforesaid. The veracity of which can be ascertained during the trial only. Accordingly, the present petition is devoid of any merit, and therefore, same stands dismissed.

Let the copy of judgment be communicated to the learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if any.